The growing evidence for Tara Reade’s claim that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993 may still not be enough to prove her case. But look at it from the perspective of Occam’s Razor. Does it seem more likely that Reade committed to a lie, falsely smearing Biden (mostly in private) as a criminal assailant for at least a quarter-century? Or that Reade, however wacky, is now telling the truth publicly after years of considering the consequences, the trauma, and the blowing up of Biden’s political fortunes?
We already had one on-the-record witness. Reade’s former neighbor Lynda LaCasse claims that Reade detailed Biden forcibly pushing his hand up her skirt and penetrating her, corroborating her allegation against Biden in detail just two or three years after it happened. We also have the Larry King Live tape, evidently documenting Reade’s mother claiming her daughter had insurmountable “problems” working for a prominent senator in August 1993, the last month Reade worked for Biden. Three other witnesses claim that Reade alleged assault or harassment at the time, although one, Reade’s brother, changed his story, and the other two refuse to be named or directly quoted.
But now a new piece of material evidence has emerged: a record from Reade’s 1996 divorce. While contesting a restraining order Reade had filed against him, her ex-husband disclosed that Reade had “related a problem that she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office” and that “it was obvious that this event had a very traumatic effect” on her.
At this point, Reade’s initial allegation of sexual harassment probably meets the preponderance of evidence. But this new record bolsters both that claim of harassment and her additional claim of assault. Sure, Reade’s ex-husband doesn’t clearly describe the assault the way her neighbor did, but that would be unlikely in an argument contesting a restraining order. In that context, he would be more likely to allude to a “traumatic” incident. Workplace sexual harassment can be a trauma too, but is it really more likely that her ex-husband was referring to Biden making creepy remarks about her legs or to his shoving her up against a wall and committing a criminal assault?
This is no basis for condemning Biden. Occam’s Razor is no substitute for consistent evidentiary standards. Likewise, the insistence upon simply “believing women” rather than evaluating whether evidence is sufficient enough to meet that standard has always been a dumb and emotionally manipulative construct. But it’s a construct that Democrats have always embraced. It is too much to see them cast it aside now, with Reade possessing a considerable amount of evidence for her claim.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose office is almost surely responsible for leaking Christine Blasey Ford’s letter and forcing her to out herself, has completely changed her tune on believing all women.
“I don’t know this person at all who has made the allegations,” Feinstein said. “She came out of nowhere. Where has she been all these years? He was Vice President. Why didn’t she say something — you know when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee or after that?”
Feinstein could have simply said that sexual assault is notoriously difficult to prove, especially for decades-old allegations. She could have said the available evidence is insufficient or that the charge seems wildly out of character for Biden. But instead, she and plenty of the party are sticking to a dumb dichotomy that necessitates that they implicitly, or explicitly, smear Reade as a liar.
Consider the implications of this. They want us to believe that Reade, a lifelong Democrat who worked for Democrats, fabricated an assault by a powerful Democratic senator 27 years ago, telling multiple people but keeping the matter private over the next quarter-century … for what? Yes, she could have gone public earlier, but victims have all sorts of reasons for not coming forward.
Prior to LaCasse’s corroboration, it seemed very possible that Reade had merely been harassed but recently embellished her allegation to this. But LaCasse’s statement, that Reade described the assault in detail 25 years ago, along with the sworn statement by Reade’s ex-husband that her “problem” at Biden’s office had a very “traumatic effect” on her, would have to mean that Reade started lying at least a quarter-century ago.
So, you tell me. Do you think Democrats genuinely believe that Reade is so cruel and manipulative that she invented an assault decades ago and stuck to her lie in the hopes of maybe bashing Biden someday? Did she leave breadcrumbs in the 1990s, anticipating that someday he would lock up the Democratic nomination she would finally drop this bomb on him? It doesn’t seem very likely.
